Search results

Despite heightened interest in return‐on‐investment (ROI) and increased accountability for training professionals to prove their bottom‐line organizational value, many practitioners are deterred from comprehensive measurement and ROI evaluation due to concerns about the cost, time, and human resources necessary to fully implement the process. This article, the second in a two part series, aims to present best practice, cost savings approaches for developing a credible, economical ROI strategy.

A systemic approach to measuring training's impact begins with an evaluation framework. For purposes of this article, Phillips' (1997) five‐level framework for capturing the financial impact of training programs was referenced. Based upon over 20 years of research and global applications, Phillips' ROI model also includes techniques for isolating the impact of other variables, besides training, upon performance improvement.

Many organizations around the globe are using cost‐saving approaches so they can begin conducting ROI evaluation within their current budget while others use cost‐saving approaches in order to increase the number of ROI studies they conduct. The ten cost saving approaches for measuring programs at the ROI level have been proven to significantly decrease resource requirements while still providing sound, credible data. Despite these factors, establishing an evaluation culture is no easy task. In many ways, implementing a system‐wide ROI effort is similar to implementing a large‐scale change initiative.

Practical application of these cost‐savings approaches allows the resource‐constrained training function to present their work in terms of financial benefits that leaders understand and have come to expect. It is a vital step in establishing business partnerships that will enhance commitment for training programs, products, and services going forward.

By evaluating training programs with the ROI in mind, training functions can be perceived in a more credible light. Programs aligned with organization strategy are offered, while others that add little value are redesigned and sometimes eliminated. Trainers, designers and developers can use the findings of an ROI evaluation to increase training alignment with business needs and to improve the efficiency of the training design, development, and delivery life cycle.

This study’s purpose is to contribute to literature on training evaluation following Kirkpatrick’s four-levels model and estimating each training program’s return on investment (ROI) using evidence from a small firm.

This case study uses data collected at a logistics company based upon training output indicators like training program evaluation data; individual performance evaluation reports; information on attained objectives; service and productivity levels; quality audit reports; and accounting data.

Results show that all the training programs addressed report evaluation procedures at the four different levels (reactions, learning, behavior and results). ROI for each training program was estimated based upon costs and benefits associated to each program. The two training programs presenting above-average returns address work quality and conditions. The program addressing corporate social responsibility issues produced below-average results.

Limitations to this study may result from collecting data in a single moment in time and using data from a single organization, excluding generalization and extrapolation of results.

This case study should inspire managers in small and medium enterprises (SME) to implement training evaluation practices and ROI estimation. Having the ROI estimation available allows better management of the training budget, as ROI’s presentation is an argument to assign value and progress.

The originality of this study regards the way it reports training evaluation practices at the four levels established by Kirkpatrick’s framework (2005) and complements it with ROI estimation regarding five training courses run at a Portuguese SME logistics firm.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the approaches used by leading lodging properties to assess the costs and contributions of training. The study also investigates the barriers to collecting data required for the calculation of return on investment (ROI) and begs the question, “when are hotel companies going to design a system that tracks the value of employee development?” Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a purposeful sampling method and focuses on a small number of hotel companies rather than a large sample. The interview questions were developed through an extensive literature and are based upon Kirkpatrick and Phillips' framework. The qualitative method employed for this study uses Littrell and Dickson's adaptation of Marshall and Rossman's qualitative research cycle. Findings – The paper reveals the haphazard approach to corporate spending and tracking training, one of the major expenses in the lodging industry. It explores the failure of hoteliers to expect accountability for the investment into employee development. Research limitations/implications – This study is exploratory and therefore may not be generalized to the entire population of human resources and training departments within the hotel industry. Practical implications – This exploratory study identifies the barriers of calculating the ROI of training. It also suggests strategies human resource managers can use to develop ROI for training programs and access employee development programs and budgets. Originality/value – This paper explores the unique perspective held by lodging managers on the issue of ROI in training. Very little research has been done on this aspect of ROI in training in the hotel industry.

Changes in the format of library materials, increased amounts of information, and the speed at which information is being produced have created an unrelenting need for training for library staff members. Additionally, library employees are retiring in greater numbers and their accompanying expertise is being lost. The purpose of this study was to document evaluation practices currently used in library training and continuing education programs for library employees, including metrics used in calculating return-on-investment (ROI). This research project asked 272 library training professionals to identify how they evaluate training, what kind of training evaluation practices are in place, how they select programs to evaluate for ROI, and what criteria are important in determining an effective method for calculating ROI.

The purpose of this study is to emphasize the importance of return on investment (ROI) within training programs in Malaysian small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Specifically, this paper focuses on the determinants that may influence the adoption of ROI in the current training evaluation practice.

The paper highlights the internal and external organizational factors that may influence ROI adoption within the Malaysian context. The internal drivers are identified as management support, while the external drivers are policies and regulation, competitive pressure and customer expectation.

Based on a comprehensive review in the human resource field, the main drivers for ROI adoption are identified as management support, policies and regulations, competitive pressure and customer expectation.

On the face of fierce national and international competitions, SMEs need to seriously consider investing in higher-level training evaluation, i.e. ROI, to increase its labor quality and subsequently organization’s productivity.

Prior studies tend to concentrate on larger organization, whereas research on the adoption of ROI in SMEs has received less attention from the scholars. This study builds a conceptual work based on the integration of internal and external environments in the scope of study rarely analyzed, i.e. Malaysian SMEs. Strong SMEs are undoubtedly important for Malaysia to achieve its vision in becoming a developed nation by end of the decade. It is also worth to note that findings from this study are applicable to other developing countries with similar background to Malaysia.

The purpose of this study is to describe the evaluation of a training programme in a Portuguese family’s small and medium enterprise (SME) in the cosmetics industry. This study addresses the four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model and estimates the return on investment (ROI) of a training programme in sales.

The study follows a case design to address the analysis of the training outcomes. This study uses data from 53 employees and explore the programme’s results.

This study provides evidence on the reactions of the trainees to the programme; the learning which results from it; and on the changes in trainees’ behaviours and the consequent results. This study also estimates the ROI of the programme; it is 5.55.

The limitations to this study may be the use of data from a single training programme.

The research results offer managers some critical information in terms of future options in resource allocation. Training managers become more informed in making future choices on where to invest in training programmes.

The originality of the study regards the ROI estimation for an SME’s sales training programme. SMEs are not often addressed in the training evaluation literature. Because SMEs have limited organisational resources, and they do not invest much in training. Further, this estimation requires data gathering and reporting that is not commonly done, even for large firms.

Increasingly, training professionals are being asked to justify whether training is a worthwhile investment. Following on from part one, describes four practical methods for determining the cost‐effectiveness of training. Presents details and examples on how to use each method. Also identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Ends with a skill check which provides an opportunity to apply the content covered.

Advocates of outdoor experiential training (OET) fervently believe in its efficacy, but often have difficulty mustering “hard data” on the business results attributable to OET. OET adherents tend to rely on testimonials of how it promotes leadership and team development. Return on investment (ROI) analysis is perhaps the best way to demonstrate the impact of OET. ROI calculations treat leadership and team development training expenditures as an investment and evaluate the financial returns to an organization relative to that investment. This paper outlines a model by which the ROI of OET can be calculated, and encourages research in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an evaluation of training for shop assistants, specifically in retail chains.

The proposed evaluation is based on Kirkpatrick’s model and Phillips’ modification. The representative case study includes the application of the training evaluation at the fourth and fifth levels of evaluation in a particular chain of retail stores. The data were collected from the retail chain’s financial reports, internal documents related to training of employees and interviews with managers in the retail chain.

The results contribute to the training evaluation literature by presenting a training evaluation for shop assistant using evidence from a retail chain. The training focussed on selling skills and product knowledge; the details of evaluating the training are presented, encompassing mainly the benefits and costs of the training and return on investment calculation.

The training evaluation was tested only in selected types of training courses for shop assistants. To generalise the results, its adoption in different types of training and retail companies is required in future research.

The application of this training evaluation should help to achieve training objectives and enhance the quality of training in the retail chain. The results of the paper can be used as practical inspiration for managers of retail stores.

This paper proposes and applies a specific evaluation of training courses in retail.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a better methodology for evaluating the value of corporate training to make it easier to compare with other organizational investments. The paper also seeks to propose and demonstrate how “time value of money” and “hurdle rate”, which are significant components of traditional investment valuation methods, can and should be incorporated into the valuation of organization training.

The training investment evaluation methods most commonly used by the training professionals were identified and compared to investment evaluation techniques used to measure the value of other investments made to improve and expand business activities.

The survey of training investment evaluation literature showed that there are two major problems in the methods utilized by the training professionals. One of the problems was associated with the measurement and monetization of costs and benefits of the training activity. The other was the non‐comparable return values’ generated by the non‐uniform methodologies used by the training professionals. Both of these issues were addressed and shortcomings of the currently used methodologies where changes should be made to improve this process were identified. A new methodology, which will make the evaluation process more acceptable to the company management, was developed and its use was demonstrated.

Unfortunately, the issues associated with monetization of costs and benefits could not be fully addressed. This is much more organization specific and specific to the type of training provided. However, some examples were provided of how this activity could be uniformly applied.

The paper provides a new and more acceptable methodology for the use of training professionals and organizations to evaluate the value of training.

This paper applies a “financial analyst” or a Chief Financial Officer perspective to organizational investment in training and provides a tool for evaluating its value the same way organizations evaluate their other investments (e.g. acquisitions, factory expansions, product development).